New Hampshire Underground

I have been lurking here for a while...and am just finally getting around to registering and posting. I'm glad to be here as you all have become my heroes just for the fact that you are all willing to stand together for what is right, for a free way of living.

For a long time I have been angry...I couldn't understand this rage in me. I have a good life, a great dog and a loving partner. I work hard and sleep in a soft bed every night. But this anger crept up into my throat and stayed there, in a knot...like a captured scream. It took me a long while to understand why I am so angry: we are not free. I am not free. I realized that I am lied to, over taxed and manipulated. I realized that I am a part of a machine that I cannot break out of, that I was born free but was only that way for an instant, that I have been shackled by this society, this government. After the initial realization, came a time of rapid exploration for me. I started asking questions when I was told to do something instead of blindly obeying the "officials". I started to see myself as a human being, which was strange, because it really showed me how long it had been that I didn't view myself as such, in the true implication of what it means to be a free human being.


One such situation that caused me to question "authority" as opposed to obeying was recent. The City Clerks office called me and basically told me that I was being fined for not licensing my dog before the end of April. I told the woman that I had called and checked with the City Office before I purchased my dog to see what the policy was and, upon being told that I could register my dog straight away or for a lesser fee after having the animal spayed, decided to wait until after the dog had been spayed to register her. The person I spoke with did not tell me there is a deadline. I had my dog spayed as soon as she was old enough but had not yet sent the paperwork and money in to register her with the city. "Well, a notice was sent to your house and it was returned to us...but the policy states that the fee and paperwork must be submitted before the last day of April". I told her again that I had not been made aware of this policy and that obviously the notice had not reached me as she could see it had been returned to them, despite having my correct mailing address.

Now, the fee was $35 (or something) and the "fine" for late submission is supposed to be $4 or so....so the total fee she was asking me to send in was $39.00. I normally would have just sent the money in so as not to break the rules....but at this point I was sick of it. I was angry. I am sick of my money being sent off in little envelopes to who knows where. I'm sick of not knowing what I'm paying for when I pay for these stupid fees, etc. I pay taxes out the behind for gosh sakes, why is everyone trying to squeeze money out of me? I don't even think I should have to register my freakin' animal, but hey...whatever.

So, I asked the woman: "Where is this money actually going." Please forgive my naiveté when I say that I honestly thought the money went to some sort of set-aside for the city to maintain their animal control unit or something relevant like that. But no....she said to me, with a tone of shameful culpability, "I'm not sure what the money goes to exactly, but I know it is sent to the State of New Hampshire and ends up in the general budget". I told her that I didn't know yet if I would be sending the money in as I found that somewhat suspect and bordering on outrageous.

Was I right, here? Is this a stupid place for me to draw a line in the sand? I am just sick of my money being taken from me by people who will freely admit that they are not sure where it's going to go, but that it definitely is not going to anything relevant to the actual activity or service that is being fined/taxed. I could justify sending the money into the city office if the woman said that it goes to maintain the local pound or some service responsible for capturing, fixing and adopting out strays. That in itself would give me heartburn but I could justify it. This woman flat out told me that this money is being charged of me, while no service is being given to me....and that the money is going into the general fund for the state. I didn't ask for anything from the state. I bought a dog with my own money, I paid the vet bills and bought her little dogdy things with my own money. I keep the animal, feed her, etc....with no help from the state. So then, why am I being charged money. This, to me, seems like an animal tax. Am I honestly being charged an ANIMAL TAX? And I have to pay.....because they say so...even thought they cannot tell me where the money goes??

This may all sound stupid and so small, but this is my first stand, this is the first time I've said "NO". Am I doing it right? I just want to go about all of this the right way. I have decided that I am a human being, that I have the right to say no...and I want to say no more often.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Is this a good place to draw a line....? Or are these bastards going to come and take my dog away?

Thank you for reading this...I know it sounds silly and small....but it is my first stand...I feel happy. I really feel happy, like a real person. A free person, who can say "No, that doesnt sound like a relevant or valid tax or a legitimate reason to call me at work and harass me."

:brave:

Any resistance is good resistance :)  Good for you!

The straw that broke the camel's back wasn't a big thing, either. Welcome!

You're going to hear more and more of a "Giant Sucking Sound" as money goes into the General Fund try and cover the spending orgy that the legislature railroaded though in Concord last session!

Whatever you do, be sure and post, blog, write letters to the editor (http://nhliberty.org/lte)... be vocal!

dude....it is really great to have you here.   If you post us contact information for any persons harrassing you...I will be happy to call or write some of them with polite questions.    i think you are right on track here....the power to license dogs is the power to destroy dogs.

we can raise a heck of a stink if they start bugging you and if they take your dog maybe we can

surround
the pound

LOL

oh also i am adding "refuse to license dog"

....to our civil disobedience idea list

You're not being silly...this could be the impetus to become more of an activist. 

I became a more vocal activist following a "silly" incident that occured at WalMart.  I was grocery shopping at WalMart with my teenage children and I asked my son to go pick up some butane for a lighter (his lighter, by the way, which he'd bought months earlier at WalMart).  As I was checking out, he returned and said they wouldn't sell him butane because he was under 18 (he was 17 at the time).  I said, "That's ridiculous," and stormed over to the 'high security' cigarette check-out and asked the clerk for butane.  She looked at me (middle-aged mom), then looked at my son, then said she couldn't sell it to me because I might be buying it for my son.  I asked what law forbid them from selling butane to someone under 18.  She couldn't name it, but said WalMart could be fined thousands of dollars.  I made a scene and they had to bring in the supervisor, and I continued to make a coherent yet strong scene with the supervisor, but to no avail.  Long story short...there is no such law.  I went to Hannaford down the street and bought the butane, which was stocked outside the high security cigarette aisle.  I asked the Hannaford clerk if she would sell it to a 17-year-old and she answered yes, of course. 

Sometimes it's these little things that get you thinking about the intrusiveness of others (government mainly) into our personal lives.  And one of the issues that bugs me the most is government trying to legislate good parenting....grrrrrrr.

You got my blood running, Rattydog.

Oh I forgot to write that I have a 4-year-old dog and I refuse to license her.  I think I might get bagged, too, because I recently took her to the vet and they asked why she'd never had a rabies shot.  Uh oh...I'm in trouble now :icon_pirat:

Quote from: malevil on July 09, 2007, 12:16 PM NHFT
You're not being silly...this could be the impetus to become more of an activist. 

I became a more vocal activist following a "silly" incident that occured at WalMart. 

I hope you wrote a letter to that Walmart, the HQ and told them they lost a customer.

Ratty... it is often the small things that make you see the larger things.  As many have said.. it is a journey, a process.

Interesting links:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XLV/466/466-4.htm mentions that it goes the the State Treasurer. The law started in 1891!!! updated last in 1997.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XLV/466/466-5.htm  but if they license cats then ALL the money stays in the local town.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XLV/466/466-7.htm  $1 a month late fee.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XLV/466/466-14.htm  taking of animals.  They can  but will they?  They have to tell you in writing first.

And it is interesting.... why does the state need this money?  I see your point if it goes to local animal control.  Perhaps you could contact your NH rep (if you are friendly with them)

Welcome to the revolution.

Quote from: RattyDog on July 09, 2007, 01:34 PM NHFT

Ummmmm....Revolution, anyone? Seriously, I feel silly because this is such a small thing...

Some revolutions started over something 'small' like a 1/2 penny tax on tea, playing cards, etc etc. ;D

Ratty, a good person to talk to might be your State Rep!
Most of them feel they have an obligation to bring forward bills requested by their constituents.

Chat with them a bit and they may have good ideas about ways to redress this grievance. Come to an agreement with them about what makes most sense to both of you, and you'll have an advocate in the legislature.

Some ideas off the top of my head:
* Require that any "registration" fees collected (such as for vehicles, pets, etc) include a line-item breakdown of where the money goes
* Repeal RSA 466-14 : Do not allow the State to confiscate a person's Companion Animal as a punitive measure for nonpayment of fines!
* Modify RSA 466-4 to require that all such fees be used to fund animal care & control efforts in the local community ("local control" is a hot political item right now; all the Republican Reps will likely support such a bill!)

Step #1: Find out who your Reps are
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/whosmyleg/default.asp

Step #2: Call up the one with the highest NHLA rating (the most pro-liberty reps are almost always also the most willing to talk to their constituents)
http://www.nhliberty.org/files/2007%20House%20Rating.pdf

Quote from: Dreepa on July 09, 2007, 12:18 PM NHFT

Quote from: malevil on July 09, 2007, 12:16 PM NHFT
You're not being silly...this could be the impetus to become more of an activist. 

I became a more vocal activist following a "silly" incident that occured at WalMart. 

I hope you wrote a letter to that Walmart, the HQ and told them they lost a customer.

Ratty... it is often the small things that make you see the larger things.  As many have said.. it is a journey, a process.

I penned the most beautiful letter you'll ever read (it could have won a poison pen award) and sent it to WalMart - corporate and the manager at the local store - never received a response.  Typical, huh?

Quote from: malevil on July 09, 2007, 03:00 PM NHFT

Quote from: Dreepa on July 09, 2007, 12:18 PM NHFT

Quote from: malevil on July 09, 2007, 12:16 PM NHFT
You're not being silly...this could be the impetus to become more of an activist. 

I became a more vocal activist following a "silly" incident that occured at WalMart. 

I hope you wrote a letter to that Walmart, the HQ and told them they lost a customer.

Ratty... it is often the small things that make you see the larger things.  As many have said.. it is a journey, a process.

I penned the most beautiful letter you'll ever read (it could have won a poison pen award) and sent it to WalMart - corporate and the manager at the local store - never received a response.  Typical, huh?

Yup.. now you just have to vote with your dollars.
+1 for action.

Quote from: Dreepa on July 09, 2007, 01:41 PM NHFT

Quote from: RattyDog on July 09, 2007, 01:34 PM NHFT

Ummmmm....Revolution, anyone? Seriously, I feel silly because this is such a small thing...

Some revolutions started over something 'small' like a 1/2 penny tax on tea, playing cards, etc etc. ;D

Yes and our forefathers blew peoples heads off over those taxes!!

Yet today you get called radical for even questioning whats going on.

Ratty, welcome!

Similar thing happened to me this past weekend.  I have a metal drum, a chiminea and a copper outdoor fire pit.  All of which I use for burning small branches etc.  I figure since it is all contained fires it is no different then burning them in the fire place inside my house.  I even asked the chief of police if he knew of any reason I couldn't burn in an outdoor fireplace or drum, he knew of none.  This weekend however while I was burning a couple branches I cut the fire department showed up insisting that I apply for a permit to even go so far as us my little $20 chiminea that I got from the Christmas tree shop.  The thing is so small I can only fit 8 inch long logs which are around 3 or 4 inches diameter at most... yet I need a permit.

I can however take those same logs and sticks and burn them inside my house without a permit... good figure.

As a result I am preparing to write every state rep (regardless of district) asking them to repeal this assign law.

I mean it would be one thing if I were burning openly where I could be putting my neighbors homes at risk but if it is a contained fire which I'm watching and I had a bucket of water near by just in case where is the problem.

That's just it, we allow the government to put all these little restrictions on us left and right and we think nothing of the fact we have to ask their permission to do what we want with our own land, homes and pets.

the bos of slavery are not forged in an instant but widdled over years.  Each small freedom or right that you let go is another bit that shapes the shackels.

Quote from: lildog on July 09, 2007, 03:40 PM NHFT
I am preparing to write every state rep (regardless of district) asking them to repeal this assign law.

Hitting up every State Rep for an issue of this (lack of) magnitude is not going to help your case.

You will have a much, much better chance of actually repealing the law, by simply:
1. contacting your Reps
2. keeping an eye on the resulting LSR and bill (which you can easily do by enabling "tracking" on it at http://generalcourt.org )
3. notifying the NHLA (research@nhliberty.org) and posting to NHFree when the bill comes up for public hearing

I will do my best to lobby in favor of any such bill, and will help you to lobby effectively, too.
"lobby" here simply means: convince the key people on the committee that the bill is a Good Idea.

For rather small, noncontroversial bills like the ones discussed in this thread, it's most effective to just focus on the Committee Chair, and anyone on the committee who doesn't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Making a big deal out of it by contacting every single Rep, protesting with signs, etc., etc., is only going to hurt your chances. It isn't huge like an income tax, medical marijuana, or education.

"Making a big deal out of it by contacting every single Rep, protesting with signs, etc., etc., is only going to hurt your chances. It isn't huge like an income tax, medical marijuana, or education."

Good point

Welcome Rattydog....

I'm glad that you found us. You are right on and I'm with you 100%.

We have openly refused to pay a city fee in the past because it just didn't make sense to us. We asked the city employee we were speaking to what the ramifications were for not paying the fee and after hearing them we just said "OK we understand, thanks for letting us know -- we won't be paying".

Again welcome to nhfree.com you are not alone...

Quote from: RattyDog on July 09, 2007, 01:34 PM NHFT
"If the unlicensed dog is seized, it shall be held in a town or city holding facility for a period of 7 days, after which time full title to the dog shall pass to the facility, unless the owner of the dog has, before the expiration of the period, caused the dog to be licensed."

One more thing I bet they would do - if no one adopts the seized dog after 14 days they will kill it.

Now would be a good time to ask the dogcatcher to quit his immoral job.

Hi Rattydog,

I was just directed to this thread by Dreepa (thanks Dreepa).  Looks like we're in the same boat.  I just posted the following as a new topic in the "Ask Questions of NH Residents" thread:

"Hey everyone,

I moved to NH almost two years ago with my girlfriend and our Jack Russell Terrier.  Since then, we have adopted a Bernese Mountain dog.  We always keep our dogs up-to-date on vet checks and immunizations.  We treat them like they were our children.  We have never felt the desire or need to register our pets and pay money to local governments for said registration.  I guess they never proved to us that their services were worth our $$$$.   

Well, we have been getting along just find for about a year and a half until we received a letter from the City of Manchester demanding that we come down to such and such office, register our pets, and pay them $$$$.  FYI - I guess the City gets pet owner's info from veterinarians and sends out letters demanding $$$ for the "priviledge" of owning a pet in the city.  Granted, it's not alot of money but it's the principle that is pissing me off. 

Has anyone else run into this situation?  If so, what are the consequences of not paying and registering a pet?  I have just drafted up a letter in response to their demand for $$$$ and will be placing it in the mail tomorrow:

"Dear City of Manchester,

Thank you for your interest in my personal matters but at this time we will not be needing your services.  Have a great day!"

Any thoughts/suggestions/advice?"

Rattydog . . . I'm on the same page as you.  I've never been very active in civil disobedience but I do not think I can morally pay this fee.  It's completely outrageous.  I've lived in three states with pets and they have never been registered and I've never had a problem.  I know it sounds like a small stand to take but I'm completely ready to fight this bullshit fee and sense of entitlement...especially since they told you that the money goes into a "general fund."  I always assumed the money went toward shelters, etc. but now that I know it doesn't, I really don't want to pay. 

Please keep me posted with your progress and any outlines that you are creating.  I am also going to try to write some letters and contact my reps within the next month (the next two weeks will be crazy for me as I will be out of town).  I am also thinking about contacting my vet to see why they disclosed our info without notifying us.  I'm with you on this one!!!

Moral of the story: Don't give the vet a real address.

Since my dog just had her very first rabies vac, I'll let you know if/when I get a letter from my town demanding we 'register' her.  I regret I even had her vaccinated...she's an tiny 6-lb. indoor dog, never goes outside (does her business on a dog mat)...but, of course, while at the vet she just happened to nip at vet's hand as I was asking why she needed to be vaccinated against rabies.  He mentioned that if she ever bit anyone (apparently besides him) and we couldn't prove she had a rabies vaccine, they would have to put her down.

I seem to remember years ago that a significant portion of the dog registration fees paid to our town went to the town clerk as a 'commission' or some such thing.  The town clerk was even calling our house to 'remind' us to register our dog because she had a personal financial stake in it.  Am I remembering that right?

Quote from: RattyDog on July 09, 2007, 05:32 PM NHFT

Rosie...

Has anyone ever showed up at your home to take your dog? More power to you lady, this fee is bullcrap and to tell you the truth, I think I'm more ticked about the fine than anything else. I mean, come on...$4?? So basically just a shameless attempt at squeezing four dollars out of me?? Four dollars that they don't even have any specific need for?? WTF is that about?

Actually, the fee we didn't pay was to register our in-home security system....but seems to be similar in scope

Licensed Govt snitches...

436:102 Duties of Veterinarian.

  It shall be the duty of each veterinarian, at the time of vaccinating
any dog, cat, or ferret, to complete a certificate of rabies vaccination
in triplicate which includes the following information: owner's name and
address, description of dog, cat, or ferret (breed, sex, markings, age,
name), date of vaccination, rabies vaccination tag number, type of rabies
vaccine administered, manufacturer's serial number of vaccine, and the
expiration date of the vaccination. Distribution of copies of the
certificate shall be: the original to the owner, one copy retained by the
issuing veterinarian and, within 40 days of the vaccination, one copy to
the town or city clerk where the dog, cat, or ferret is kept. The
veterinarian and the owner shall retain their copies for the interval
between vaccinations specified in RSA 436:100. A metal or durable plastic
tag, serially numbered, shall be securely attached to the collar or
harness of the dog. Whenever the dog is out-of-doors, off the owner's
premises, and not under the control of the owner or handler while working
the dog, the collar or harness with the vaccination tag shall be worn.
For the purposes of this section, "working the dog" means a dog doing a
defined functional canine activity with its owner or handler such as
hunting, field work, drafting, and guarding, working, or herding
livestock, as defined in RSA 21:34-a, II(a)(4), or participating in any
lawful competitive event, including, but not limited to, conformation
shows or obedience trials, field trials, agility events, hunts, sled
races, or training activities pertinent to functional canine activities.
Cats and ferrets shall not be required to wear the collar or harness with
the tag.

  Source. 1985, 72:1. 1990, 17:1. 1992, 250:5. 1994, 353:1. 1995, 202:6,
eff. June 12, 1995. 2006, 11:4, eff. March 3, 2006.


466:1-b Rabies Certificate.

  Upon receipt of a copy of a rabies certificate from a veterinarian
pursuant to RSA 436:102, the clerk of the town or city shall send written
notice to the owner or keeper of any unlicensed dog relative to the
licensing requirements provided for in RSA 466:1. If the owner or keeper
of the unlicensed dog fails to license the dog in a timely manner, the
town or city clerk shall notify the local law enforcement officer of a
violation of RSA 466:1.

  Source. 1994, 353:3, eff. Jan. 1, 1995.

Quote from: RattyDog on July 09, 2007, 01:01 PM NHFT

I am a tax paying, law abiding citizen of this country....

I agree with Rand .... that they make enough rules so that noone is "innocent".

No, it's not silly at all - this is how you get started.

Register your local Jew or Black.  Have them wear distinguishing clothing or emblems.  Force them by law to give up their seats on the bus to their betters.

There are somethings that supposedly are the legitimate purview of govt - and then there are things that are absolutely off limits.

Fight them tooth and nail every step of the way.  Write the offices and officials directly involved letters that quote RSA's and other matters specifically pertaining to your situation.  Bring up the matter of them treating you with the respect and dignity due to an American Citizen, taxpayer, and constituent.  They are ABUSING you.  They are ABUSING your trust in them as your representatives.  They owe you - you do not owe them.  Government buildings are there so that the people can tell the govt what to do, not the other way around.  Make them spend time and effort and risk losing the respect of the people that they claim is so important. 

Depending upon how you want to play this,
Pay the original $35, and make the entire issue about the $4 late fee.  That makes their claims even more ridiculous to the average person.  If the $35 goes toward doing some crap dealing with dog-catchers and rabies programs, fine, you paid for that, but the $4 late fee is just abuse.  I think you might be more likely to get public support from the ignorant public if you do something like that than just try to buck the whole $39.

Pay the $35 in loose change.

Pay $34.99

Pay $38.99

Send a bill to the vet for a $39 violation of confidentiality, or just call it a squealer's fee.

Get a really BIG mean animal and keep it in a shed surrounded by a fence.  Have them come take THAT animal.  "Don't hurt Fluffy!" 

Find some other Francisco d'Anconia tactics to use.  Do anything but what they want or expect.  Complicate and confuse the issue and make them waste VAST amounts of time and energy and money on it.  Have a whopping ton of sadistic FUN. 

I know I can be eternally vigilant for Liberty, because I have unending sadistic fantasies about crushing my political enemies and driving them before me out of the Free State.  The administration of government should be torture, and I intend on turning fascist authoritarian legislators, police, and tax collectors into weeping miserable masochists.

Working for liberty or just quitting their jobs will look like paradise in comparison.   :icon_pirat:

ratty can you make a list of things we could do to help you with this?  assuming you want our help..

one thing that it might include is contact info for all the apparent bad guys.    I kind of like the idea of a silent demonstration inside the vet office.  that would really peel their paint off.

Geez.  Ratty, having to pay protection money for your dog really is a horrible thing.  I can imagine a guy in a suit with a thick Italian accent saying, "Hey, geez, Ratty, it'd be terrible if some unfortunate 'accident' should occur to your dog there.  For $35 dollars a year, we can offer 'protection' against these certain kinds of 'accidents.'"

It's interesting that you're getting so angry about the government; I'd think that might get a bit debilitating.  Are you really walking around with a distracting amount of anger (a constant lump in your throat) about the government intrusions?

Rattydogg,

I might have found a loophole for me . . . I don't know if it would help your situation though.  I found this on the City of Manchester website:

"I NO LONGER OWN MY DOG, WHAT SHOULD I DO?


Contact the Manchester City Clerk's Office at 624-6455 or email us at CityClerk@ci.manchester.nh.us. We will then update your record so that you do not receive any future notices."

My girlfriend and I own a home together and live together but aren't married.  I'm thinking we could just transfer "ownership" of the dog back and forth from each other to buy time in between notices demanding payment.  For example, I contact the city and tell them I no longer own the dog.  The city probably wouldn't know any better until their next rabies vaccination.  Shortly after that vaccination, my girlfriend could contact them and tell them she no longer owns the dog.  The city is so slow in responding that we could probably keep them busy/confused enough that it would take them a long, long time to sort out who actually owns the dog.  It probably wouldn't be enough for them to quit bothering us but it would be entertaining.  I just found out my fee is only $7.50, how is yours so expensive? 

Quote from: malevil on July 09, 2007, 12:16 PM NHFT
You're not being silly...this could be the impetus to become more of an activist. 

I became a more vocal activist following a "silly" incident that occured at WalMart.  I was grocery shopping at WalMart with my teenage children and I asked my son to go pick up some butane for a lighter (his lighter, by the way, which he'd bought months earlier at WalMart).  As I was checking out, he returned and said they wouldn't sell him butane because he was under 18 (he was 17 at the time).  I said, "That's ridiculous," and stormed over to the 'high security' cigarette check-out and asked the clerk for butane.  She looked at me (middle-aged mom), then looked at my son, then said she couldn't sell it to me because I might be buying it for my son.  I asked what law forbid them from selling butane to someone under 18.  She couldn't name it, but said WalMart could be fined thousands of dollars.  I made a scene and they had to bring in the supervisor, and I continued to make a coherent yet strong scene with the supervisor, but to no avail.  Long story short...there is no such law.  I went to Hannaford down the street and bought the butane, which was stocked outside the high security cigarette aisle.  I asked the Hannaford clerk if she would sell it to a 17-year-old and she answered yes, of course. 

Sometimes it's these little things that get you thinking about the intrusiveness of others (government mainly) into our personal lives.  And one of the issues that bugs me the most is government trying to legislate good parenting....grrrrrrr.

You got my blood running, Rattydog.

The scenario you describe - while utterly ridiculous - is not gov't intrusiveness, it is the policy of a business you were considering doing business with. Walmart can refuse to sell anything they want to anyone they want - and suffer the consequences. I don't want to get in the habit of demanding what business must do no more than what individuals must do - that's just a different level of intrusiveness IMO.

Quote from: error on July 09, 2007, 04:28 PM NHFT
Now would be a good time to ask the dogcatcher to quit his immoral job.

Don't blame the dog catcher - he's just earning a paycheck. His job is not immoral.

Fix the stupid law.......Denis hits the nail on the head on how to......

Quote from: RattyDog on July 09, 2007, 05:32 PM NHFT
I'll tell you, I'm in shock to think that those bastards at the vets office gave them our information. Well, not shocked I guess, just mad. It's really not that surprising. I hadn't even thought of how they knew I had a dog in the first place. When I called the clerks office initially I asked questions about their policy, but didn't give any personal information. I will be switching vets and will ask them to show me the release form I signed giving them permission to contact anyone in reference to my dog ownership or the dogs place of residence. I didn't think they were allowed to disclose any information to anyone without my consent...?

A people doctor cannot disclose your info without consent.....last I checked, as much as they are a part of our families, pets are not people, they are possessions. I'm guessing that the vets are required to report all rabies vaccinations.

Again - donlt be so annoyed with the vet, but rather convince the vet that they should help get the laws changed.....

Quote from: Rosie the Riveter on July 09, 2007, 06:15 PM NHFT
Actually, the fee we didn't pay was to register our in-home security system....but seems to be similar in scope

Rosie -
I never paid that one either. :)

I think, initially, the dog license was created to support the animal shelters and spay/neuter programs, etc. I'll guess it all just goes into the general fund now.....and then a certain $$ is appropriated out for those types of programs.

This i part of the problem with the general fund concept.....no one really seems to see what goes in and what comes out. I think people would be far less irritated if they were paying this fee to their LOCAL community to support the animal chelter, the dog catcher, etc.

Local control, local control, local control.......

Quote from: ny2nh on July 10, 2007, 06:25 AM NHFT

Quote from: error on July 09, 2007, 04:28 PM NHFT
Now would be a good time to ask the dogcatcher to quit his immoral job.

Don't blame the dog catcher - he's just earning a paycheck. His job is not immoral.

Fix the stupid law.......Denis hits the nail on the head on how to......

Yes, fix the law.  The dogcatcher is not earning anything. He is immoral as he is paid with money stolen from people who earned it.  I see no reason not to hold him personally responsible.

I like the idea of no longer owning the dog.  Inform the city that you no longer own the dog.  Don't volunteer any information about what happened to the dog.  On your own, declare the dog a "free range" dog that happens to range inside your house, foraging for food wherever he can find it.  Next time the vet call is needed, claim the dog again.  Rinse and repeat.

Or, if you're worried about your "free range dog" being arrested for being homeless, just disown the dog for a day -- long enough to inform the city of Manchester that you "no longer own the dog."  And if you happen to forget to tell them that you've re-owned the dog, oh well...

Quote from: ny2nh on July 10, 2007, 06:20 AM NHFT

Quote from: malevil on July 09, 2007, 12:16 PM NHFT
You're not being silly...this could be the impetus to become more of an activist. 

I became a more vocal activist following a "silly" incident that occured at WalMart.  I was grocery shopping at WalMart with my teenage children and I asked my son to go pick up some butane for a lighter (his lighter, by the way, which he'd bought months earlier at WalMart).  As I was checking out, he returned and said they wouldn't sell him butane because he was under 18 (he was 17 at the time).  I said, "That's ridiculous," and stormed over to the 'high security' cigarette check-out and asked the clerk for butane.  She looked at me (middle-aged mom), then looked at my son, then said she couldn't sell it to me because I might be buying it for my son.  I asked what law forbid them from selling butane to someone under 18.  She couldn't name it, but said WalMart could be fined thousands of dollars.  I made a scene and they had to bring in the supervisor, and I continued to make a coherent yet strong scene with the supervisor, but to no avail.  Long story short...there is no such law.  I went to Hannaford down the street and bought the butane, which was stocked outside the high security cigarette aisle.  I asked the Hannaford clerk if she would sell it to a 17-year-old and she answered yes, of course. 

Sometimes it's these little things that get you thinking about the intrusiveness of others (government mainly) into our personal lives.  And one of the issues that bugs me the most is government trying to legislate good parenting....grrrrrrr.

You got my blood running, Rattydog.

The scenario you describe - while utterly ridiculous - is not gov't intrusiveness, it is the policy of a business you were considering doing business with. Walmart can refuse to sell anything they want to anyone they want - and suffer the consequences. I don't want to get in the habit of demanding what business must do no more than what individuals must do - that's just a different level of intrusiveness IMO.

I didn't say my story was about government intrusiveness, but the overall intrusiveness of others (government being the biggest culprit) -- whoever they may be -- into our personal lives.  I was just making the point that sometimes "minor" encounters like my story and Rattydog's get you thinking and consequently get you off your ass to do something about it...And I will get in the habit of telling a business what to do if they're screwing with my rights and blaming it on fictitious laws.   :P

I used to believe in government too, but I got over it.

They're nasty, but they aren't so big. Think paper tiger.

Quote from: RattyDog on July 10, 2007, 12:17 PM NHFT
You know, one of the reasons I feel like a wack job....is that this all makes sooooo much sense to me and doesn't seem to make sense to 99% of folks out there. The way that we people here are talking about living, is the way a person should live, just...naturally. It makes sense to me.

Are we crazy?

People used to believe the world was flat. Only a very tiny minority of people knew that the world was round, even though none of them had ever circumnavigated it. They were largely believed to be crazy at best, heretical at worst. On occasion they were burned at the stake.

We aren't crazy; we are the hope for the future. Eventually the rest of the world will figure it out. Until then, try not to get burned.

P.S. It helps a lot to spend time with other liberty lovers. Consider going to Taproom Tuesday (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=8812.0). :)

Quote from: RattyDog on July 10, 2007, 10:00 AM NHFT
I'm trying to get this letter typed up...it's harder than I thought. I don't want to sound like a crazy lady!

Consider calling them on the phone. At home.
Really!

IN the two-and-a-half years I've been in NH, I've seen a small but dedicated group of people willing to call their Reps:
defeat a smoking ban (last year, before the Socialist Takeover of '08)
tell the Feds to go blow donkey dicks in hell with their damn Real-ID
defeat gun regulation
defeat mandatory seat belts
come within spitting distance (7 votes out of 400!) of passing medical marijuana
... and more

You live in the one State in the Union where calling your Reps makes a damn bit of difference.
Use it.

Boulder's turned into a socialist "paradise," so I've heard.

Quote from: RattyDog on July 10, 2007, 01:35 PM NHFT

Quote from: d_goddard on July 10, 2007, 12:51 PM NHFT
IN the two-and-a-half years I've been in NH, I've seen a small but dedicated group of people willing to call their Reps:
defeat a smoking ban (last year, before the Socialist Takeover of '08)
tell the Feds to go blow donkey dicks in hell with their damn Real-ID
defeat gun regulation
defeat mandatory seat belts
come within spitting distance (7 votes out of 400!) of passing medical marijuana
... and more

You live in the one State in the Union where calling your Reps makes a damn bit of difference.
Use it.

Wait wait wait...I thought the smoking ban was going into effect?? I was told that it had been passed?? I'

Last year.  Not this year.  This year it passed.

And in 2009 we're going to try to get rid of it.

I read something that the people from MA... lean more to the 'right'.
It is the people from NJ, NY, ME, and CT that are the lefties.

The smoking ban has nothing to do with the refugees from Mass.
We have a smoking ban because the 40% of Undeclared/Independent NH voters overwhelmingly expressed their disgust for the Iraq war... by voting straight-ticket DEMOCRAT.

That means we got Democrat State Reps and Democrat State Senators, whose legislative purview has NOTHING to do with Federal foreign policy, Federal immigration policy, or anything else Federal.

The majority of NH State Republicans -- especially in the House of Representatives -- are libertarian-leaning. They are not like the Republicans in Washington, DC.

You can get a good idea of which Reps are pro-freedom and which are authoritarian big-government taxers here:
http://www.nhliberty.org/2007_liberty_rating

Quote from: d_goddard on July 10, 2007, 02:06 PM NHFT

The majority of NH State Republicans -- especially in the House of Representatives -- are libertarian-leaning. They are not like the Republicans in Washington, DC.

except when it comes to :weed:

Yes, and then the Demoncrats got rid of straight ticket voting! What were they thinking? They're pissing off so many people they have virtually no chance of keeping the government in 2008, and removing straight ticket voting just ensures it.

Quote from: Dreepa on July 10, 2007, 02:08 PM NHFT

Quote from: d_goddard on July 10, 2007, 02:06 PM NHFT

The majority of NH State Republicans -- especially in the House of Representatives -- are libertarian-leaning. They are not like the Republicans in Washington, DC.

except when it comes to :weed:

You might be surprised, a lot of them voted on "our" side.
Detailed data is at:
http://www.nhliberty.org/files/2007%20House%20Liberty%20Ratings.xls

Republicans who voted in favor of medical marijuana, and their NHLA (http://nhliberty.org) letter grade:
Barry, Richard   A+
Bedrick, Jason   A
Brown, Julie   C
Crane, Elenore Casey   B
DiFruscia, Anthony   D+
Dokmo, Cynthia   C
Emiro, Frank   C+
Fletcher, Richard   B+
Francoeur, Bea   B+
Gionet, Edmond   B
Guthrie, Joseph   A
Holden, Randolph   C+
Ingbretson, Paul   A
Lockwood, Priscilla   B
Manney, Pamela   B+
McRae, Karen   A
Ober, Russell   A
Reagan, John   A
Renzullo, Andrew   B+
Sorg, Gregory   A
Soucy, Connie   A
Vaillancourt, Steve   B+
Waterhouse, Kevin   A
Wells, Roger   C


Democrats who voted against medical marijuana, and their NHLA letter grade:
Abbott, Dennis   F
Berube, Roger   F
Bridgham, Robert   F
Brown, George   Inc
Buco, Thomas   F
Butynski, William   F
Casey, Kimberley   D
Cote, David   F
Cunningham, Howard   F
Daler, Jennifer   F
Davis, Frank   F
DeStefano, Stephen   F
Estes, Carole   F
Forest, Armand   D+
Foster, Linda   F
Gagnon, Raymond   D
Goley, Jeffrey   D
Gorman, Mary   D+
Gottling, Suzanne   F
Hamm, Christine   D
Hammond, Jill   F
Harding, A Laurie   F
Hatch, William   F
Houde, Matthew   F
Howard, Doreen   F
Hutz, Sarah   D+
Irwin, Anne-Marie   F
Kelley, John   D
Knowles, John   F
Knowles, Mary Ann   F
Kopka, Angeline   F
Lerandeau, Alfred   F
Marshall, Seth   F
Matarazzo, Anthony   CT
McLeod, Martha   F
McMahon, Patricia   CT
Mickelonis, Shawn   Inc
Miller, Joseph   F
Moore, Bennett   D
Movsesian, Lori   F
Nielsen, Ellen   F
O'Neil, James   F
Pantelakos, Laura   F
Parkhurst, Henry   D+
Pilotte, Maurice   CT
Reardon, Tara   F
Rollo, Deanna   D
Rollo, Michael   F
Rosenwald, Cindy   F
Rous, Emma   CT
Russell, Trinka   F
Schulze, Joan   F
Smith, David   D
Smith, Marjorie   CT
Solomon, Peter   D
Spratt, Stephen   F
Vachon, Dennis   D
Wall, Janet   F
Wallner, Mary   F
Webb, Leigh   F
Wood, Jane   Inc


I'm not saying Republicans are all that great, I'm just saying that, taken as a group, they respect a lot more of your freedoms than the Dems do. I believe it is quite possible to move most of the "C"/"C+" Republicans into the "B/B+" grade, if there is pressure from voters and their party "leaders" to do so.
On the Democrat side... you'd be luck to move them from "F" to "D". They're still authoritarian.

Quote from: RattyDog on July 10, 2007, 03:26 PM NHFT
I wish more people had the information we have here. Would that help?

Absolutely! Tell everyone you know. :)

Quote from: malevil on July 10, 2007, 07:47 AM NHFTI didn't say my story was about government intrusiveness, but the overall intrusiveness of others (government being the biggest culprit) -- whoever they may be -- into our personal lives.  I was just making the point that sometimes "minor" encounters like my story and Rattydog's get you thinking and consequently get you off your ass to do something about it...And I will get in the habit of telling a business what to do if they're screwing with my rights and blaming it on fictitious laws.   :P

Not selling something to someone is not intrusive in any way. Annoying, yes, but there is nothing intrusive about it. Walmart isn't screwing with your rights - don't you think they have a right to have their own company policies? The clerk you spoke with might just not have had a clue about why they didn't sell to under 18......maybe they were from another state where it was illegal....who knows.

I agree that you had a very reasonable frustration with Walmart - but it's not intrusiveness or screwing with your rights.

Quote from: Dreepa on July 10, 2007, 02:08 PM NHFT

Quote from: d_goddard on July 10, 2007, 02:06 PM NHFT

The majority of NH State Republicans -- especially in the House of Representatives -- are libertarian-leaning. They are not like the Republicans in Washington, DC.

except when it comes to :weed:

Many just need to be educated on the issue. That means building relationships with them so that they listen to what you have to say and actual consider your point.

Do they have "rabies clinics" in NH? Those are common in this region. They usually take place at the local fire station, school, or community center. People show up with their dogs, and the vet gives rabies vaccinations at a reduced price (typically $10 or so). You get the tag and certificate and go on your merry way. Since it's not (necessarily) your regular vet, you can give whatever information you'd like to make up, and not have it appear in his records.

Quote from: RattyDog on July 10, 2007, 02:18 PM NHFTCount me in as one of the dummy heads who did just that. I didn't know what to do....all I knew was I didn't want to support anyone who supported the war. I am so sick of this war and the money it costs...I'm so so sick of it. I find it outrageous and abusive.

Hey, Dummy Head -

The state legislature has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. : )

Quote from: KBCraig on July 10, 2007, 05:42 PM NHFT
Do they have "rabies clinics" in NH? Those are common in this region. They usually take place at the local fire station, school, or community center. People show up with their dogs, and the vet gives rabies vaccinations at a reduced price (typically $10 or so). You get the tag and certificate and go on your merry way. Since it's not (necessarily) your regular vet, you can give whatever information you'd like to make up, and not have it appear in his records.

Yes, there are rabies clinics and I think you could give them whatever info you wanted....but you could do that at any vet's office, too.

If anyone lives in the Derry area - the groomer downstairs from my shop has 3 shot clinics (Mar, Apr & May).  It's a great deal.

In various states in periods of the history of the United States, free blacks were prohibited from owning dogs - dogs don't care about skin color, and will defend their black owner as vigorously as any white owner.

The dog licensing statute was originally set up for rabies control, at a time when rabies was rampant, but like any government program, it wasn't abandoned when its aim was accomplished and essentially universal rabies vaccination of domestic dogs was achieved.

Quote from: ny2nh on July 10, 2007, 04:59 PM NHFT

Quote from: malevil on July 10, 2007, 07:47 AM NHFTI didn't say my story was about government intrusiveness, but the overall intrusiveness of others (government being the biggest culprit) -- whoever they may be -- into our personal lives.  I was just making the point that sometimes "minor" encounters like my story and Rattydog's get you thinking and consequently get you off your ass to do something about it...And I will get in the habit of telling a business what to do if they're screwing with my rights and blaming it on fictitious laws.   :P

Not selling something to someone is not intrusive in any way. Annoying, yes, but there is nothing intrusive about it. Walmart isn't screwing with your rights - don't you think they have a right to have their own company policies? The clerk you spoke with might just not have had a clue about why they didn't sell to under 18......maybe they were from another state where it was illegal....who knows.

I agree that you had a very reasonable frustration with Walmart - but it's not intrusiveness or screwing with your rights.

Gosh, you're right.  Silly me.

Quote from: mvpel on July 10, 2007, 06:17 PM NHFT
The dog licensing statute was originally set up for rabies control, at a time when rabies was rampant, but like any government program, it wasn't abandoned when its aim was accomplished and essentially universal rabies vaccination of domestic dogs was achieved.

And like many government "control" programs, it actually works against its stated goal.

Many pet owners prefer to keep their dogs properly vaccinated, but not if doing so means getting snitched out to the licensing folks, for yet another bill, and more government threats.

I knew some towns in NH had dog licensing. I had no idea it was statewide until this thread came up. With 4-6 dogs typically in our pack, $35 apiece isn't something to sneeze at.

Kevin

Free market rabies vaccinations, anyone?

Quote from: RattyDog on July 11, 2007, 06:54 AM NHFT

Quote from: wholetthedogin? on July 10, 2007, 05:34 PM NHFT
The twerps in Hampton plan on sending warrant summonses door to door by police  to 471 dog owners who are violating the RSA by not having licensed their pooches on time.  The threat is that the fine will exceed $100 dollars .  Probably only 1 in 10 of that number are actually here.  Watch for the bru ha ha here....
If the fines are not paid within the two week period of notification the illegals will be confiscated and then what euthanized....  The warrants were authorized to go out over two weeks ago.

See www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070710/NEWS/707100362/-1/NEWS10&sfad=1 (http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070710/NEWS/707100362/-1/NEWS10&sfad=1)

Confiscated and euthanized....? Are they out of their minds?? My dog is a part of my pack...anybody who tries to take her is going to feel sorry for it later. I don't know what I would do if someone tried to come and take her. I wish....WISH...someone would try to make me pay the city (state general fund) $100. That's ridiculous...how can they even keep a straight face while enforcing that, it's ridiculous. The fact that polic officers are being paid to hand deliver these notices is beyond ridiculous...it's crazy.

I wish I could get to talking with those 471 dog owners who are going to be served with papers...they are probably pretty mad and if even half of those people would be willing to sign a petition and sign a letter that could be sent to their reps...well that would be awesome.

Direct a 91A request to the Hampton Selectmen.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-VI-91-A.htm

Quote from: RattyDog on July 11, 2007, 06:34 AM NHFTYes, but I got swept up in the "send a message to Washington, vote Democrat" thing. Yes....I feel like a dummy head. My intentions were good, I just didn't have the knowledge. It's frustrating to want to change something so badly, to know that you are right in wanting to change it, but having no clue as to how to be effective. Voting is not effective....I didn't know what to do.

Some on this site will disagree with me but I think SMART voting is effective.  Problem is far too many people do it.

Don't just vote to "send a message", really look into who it is your voting for and what they represent.

The primaries are where the real power is and the fact so few partake means those who do have that much more ability to truly make changes.  If you don't like someone, find someone better and push for them in the primaries.

Right now with the upcoming presidential primaries we have a chance to pick a really good choice rather then just "send a message".  Look at all the choices and find someone who represents your views.  If enough people actually did that we'd actually have good choices instead of looking to see who is worse.

Rattydog, you're right that WalMart's employee told me and my son that it was a law (she even told me how much the fine would be).  When I asked for the manager, he, too, said it was a law and told me how much the fine would be.  The manager even suggested I was working an undercover sting to try and catch them breaking the law.  Effing ridiculous. 

...c'est la vie.  I guess we should focus our attention on government, not good ol' WalMart.

We need to submit a bill to end the dog licensing law, and perhaps replace it with a requirement to be able to demonstrate and document rabies vaccination, with perhaps a fine or other penalties for failure to vaccinate.

Quote from: mvpel on July 11, 2007, 12:36 PM NHFT
We need to submit a bill to end the dog licensing law, and perhaps replace it with a requirement to be able to demonstrate and document rabies vaccination, with perhaps a fine or other penalties for failure to vaccinate.

good idea.
and if 'they' oppose it it will only prove that they are after the 'easy' 'small tax' money (AKA death by 1000 cuts)

Quote from: Dreepa on July 11, 2007, 12:41 PM NHFT

Quote from: mvpel on July 11, 2007, 12:36 PM NHFT
We need to submit a bill to end the dog licensing law, and perhaps replace it with a requirement to be able to demonstrate and document rabies vaccination, with perhaps a fine or other penalties for failure to vaccinate.

good idea.
and if 'they' oppose it it will only prove that they are after the 'easy' 'small tax' money (AKA death by 1000 cuts)

No it isn't.

Why replace one form of tyranny with another?

Quote from: hook on July 11, 2007, 01:03 PM NHFTWhy replace one form of tyranny with another?

Rabies is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY bad news.  If you are not treated within a very limited time after the exposure, you are the walking dead, facing a very excruciating, gruesome, horrible demise.

If your un-vaccinated pet is bitten by a rabid wild animal such as a bat or raccoon, and contracts rabies, that pet becomes a very serious threat to everyone with which it comes in contact, and can transmit the disease for potentially months before showing any symptoms.

The dog licensing system was established as a way for the state to track the mandatory vaccination of dogs.  This system has taken the human rabies death toll from about a hundred per year down to at most one or two per year, and another 40,000 people per year get the post-exposure rabies vaccination cycle, but even today around 90% of rabies exposure in humans comes from rabid dogs, and accounts for 99% of human deaths.

So while I agree that the time has passed for the licensing system here in the Internet era, I (and I'm sure many others) are not keen to jump on board the idea of no canine vaccination mandate whatsoever.  Protection of life, liberty, and property, right?

One key difference is prior restraint - the licensing system is prior restraint, where they can punish you and confiscate your dog for paperwork "offenses" even though you're completely up to date on vaccinations, while penalties for failure to vaccinate is not prior restraint.

I've touched on some of the issues brought up here on my newest column.

http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/has-anyone-seen-my-freedom.html

Enjoy!

Quote from: mvpel on July 11, 2007, 01:50 PM NHFT

Quote from: hook on July 11, 2007, 01:03 PM NHFTWhy replace one form of tyranny with another?

Rabies is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY bad news.  If you are not treated within a very limited time after the exposure, you are the walking dead, facing a very excruciating, gruesome, horrible demise.

If your un-vaccinated pet is bitten by a rabid wild animal such as a bat or raccoon, and contracts rabies, that pet becomes a very serious threat to everyone with which it comes in contact, and can transmit the disease for potentially months before showing any symptoms.

The dog licensing system was established as a way for the state to track the mandatory vaccination of dogs.  This system has taken the human rabies death toll from about a hundred per year down to at most one or two per year, and another 40,000 people per year get the post-exposure rabies vaccination cycle, but even today around 90% of rabies exposure in humans comes from rabid dogs, and accounts for 99% of human deaths.

So while I agree that the time has passed for the licensing system here in the Internet era, I (and I'm sure many others) are not keen to jump on board the idea of no canine vaccination mandate whatsoever.  Protection of life, liberty, and property, right?

One key difference is prior restraint - the licensing system is prior restraint, where they can punish you and confiscate your dog for paperwork "offenses" even though you're completely up to date on vaccinations, while penalties for failure to vaccinate is not prior restraint.

I'll concede that Rabies is a nasty disease. There are many more... Should I be compelled by force of government to be vaccinated? Should I be compelled by force of government to get my property; dog, cat, horse, cow, etc. vaccinated?
Should I be compelled by force of government to get all the mammalian wildlife roaming on my property vaccinated? Any mammal can transmit Rabies. Is the Government responsible for my health and the health of my property or am I?

Education and persuasion, not coercion is the best way to accomplish something.

Enforcing licensing which has provisions for mandatory vaccinations or having mandatory vaccinations is exactly the same thing. Mandatory vaccinations would be enforced in the same manner as the licensing. Not being vaccinated is no guarantee that the disease will be contracted.

Why not make vaccinating easier. How about an oral vaccine, which does exist, be made available without a (state approved)prescription and without a (state licensed)vet.

Quote from: hook on July 11, 2007, 02:24 PM NHFTShould I be compelled by force of government to get my property; dog, cat, horse, cow, etc. vaccinated?
Should I be compelled by force of government to get all the mammalian wildlife roaming on my property vaccinated? Any mammal can transmit Rabies. Is the Government responsible for my health and the health of my property or am I?

99% of human rabies fatalities come from dogs, so "all mammalian wildlife" is a red herring.

QuoteEducation and persuasion, not coercion is the best way to accomplish something.

I agree, but is the practical goal to eliminate the state-mandated prior-restraint dog licensing provisions, or to eliminate coercion altogether?  I submit that a bill for the former would be more likely to pass than a bill for the latter.

QuoteEnforcing licensing which has provisions for mandatory vaccinations or having mandatory vaccinations is exactly the same thing. Mandatory vaccinations would be enforced in the same manner as the licensing.

Not quite - under a system of mandatory vaccinations, or a requirement to be able to prove current vaccination on demand, you would not be subject to punishment for refusing to rent your own dog from the state.

QuoteWhy not make vaccinating easier. How about an oral vaccine, which does exist, be made available without a (state approved)prescription and without a (state licensed)vet.

Great idea!  How about putting that in Section II of the bill?

I think we have an eminently passable bill in the brewing here... :)

Quote from: mvpel on July 11, 2007, 03:05 PM NHFT

Quote from: hook on July 11, 2007, 02:24 PM NHFTShould I be compelled by force of government to get my property; dog, cat, horse, cow, etc. vaccinated?
Should I be compelled by force of government to get all the mammalian wildlife roaming on my property vaccinated? Any mammal can transmit Rabies. Is the Government responsible for my health and the health of my property or am I?

Quote99% of human rabies fatalities come from dogs, so "all mammalian wildlife" is a red herring.

99% of all human automobile fatalities happen in cars. Should I be required to wear my seatbelt?

QuoteEducation and persuasion, not coercion is the best way to accomplish something.

QuoteI agree, but is the practical goal to eliminate the state-mandated prior-restraint dog licensing provisions, or to eliminate coercion altogether?  I submit that a bill for the former would be more likely to pass than a bill for the latter.

Actually it wouldn't be. Licensing makes money for the state. Mandatory vaccinations wouldn't, unless "vaccination certificates" were only available through the state for a nominal fee.

QuoteEnforcing licensing which has provisions for mandatory vaccinations or having mandatory vaccinations is exactly the same thing. Mandatory vaccinations would be enforced in the same manner as the licensing.

QuoteNot quite - under a system of mandatory vaccinations, or a requirement to be able to prove current vaccination on demand, you would not be subject to punishment for refusing to rent your own dog from the state.

No, but you would be subject to punishment for not vaccinating or for not proving vaccination.

It be the same thing.

QuoteWhy not make vaccinating easier. How about an oral vaccine, which does exist, be made available without a (state approved)prescription and without a (state licensed)vet.

QuoteGreat idea!  How about putting that in Section II of the bill?

ok. :)

Quote from: hook on July 11, 2007, 03:38 PM NHFTNo, but you would be subject to punishment for not vaccinating or for not proving vaccination.

It be the same thing.

Except right now, you're subject to punishment for not renting your dog from the state, regardless of whether or not you've vaccinated her.

Quote from: RattyDog on July 11, 2007, 04:56 PM NHFT
You know what...when you put it that way, 'renting the dog'...it makes me even more mad. That is exactly what this is...I bought the dog and did the right thing by getting her vaccinated against rabies and for that, I now have been reported and must pay my doggie rental fee.

Un-freakin'-believable.

You're absolutely right RattyDog.  We have lived in Manch for a year and a half without any problems.  The ONLY reason that the City found out about my dog was BECAUSE we had him vaccinated for rabies.  Once they found out about him, they decided to charge me a fee to have him here.  So . . . it's a system that punishes people by demanding $$$ from them when they do the right thing (i.e. vaccinate their dogs) and reward those that do the wrong thing (i.e. not vaccinate).  It's ass-backwards and it pisses me off.  I definitely think all dogs should be vaccinated but the way the system is set up now doesn't make any sense. 

Quote from: ny2nh on July 10, 2007, 06:25 AM NHFT

Quote from: error on July 09, 2007, 04:28 PM NHFT
Now would be a good time to ask the dogcatcher to quit his immoral job.

Don't blame the dog catcher - he's just earning a paycheck. His job is not immoral.

really? He is forcing something on our friend here. Not something that would be right for me to do ... maybe not him either.

Quote from: ny2nh on July 10, 2007, 06:35 AM NHFT
This i part of the problem with the general fund concept.....no one really seems to see what goes in and what comes out. I think people would be far less irritated if they were paying this fee to their LOCAL community to support the animal chelter, the dog catcher, etc.

Local control, local control, local control.......

this working through the government thing can really feel like a treadmill .... can't it.

Quote from: RattyDog on July 10, 2007, 12:17 PM NHFT
You know, one of the reasons I feel like a wack job....is that this all makes sooooo much sense to me and doesn't seem to make sense to 99% of folks out there. The way that we people here are talking about living, is the way a person should live, just...naturally. It makes sense to me.

It also makes sense to another portion of the population .... but they are too scared to act. How many people are in your situation, but you don't know about it? It could be 50%.

Quote from: Dreepa on July 10, 2007, 02:08 PM NHFT

Quote from: d_goddard on July 10, 2007, 02:06 PM NHFT

The majority of NH State Republicans -- especially in the House of Representatives -- are libertarian-leaning. They are not like the Republicans in Washington, DC.

except when it comes to :weed:

or anything that really matters to the power structure in DC

Quote from: lildog on July 11, 2007, 10:11 AM NHFT
Some on this site will disagree with me but I think SMART voting is effective.

It is great for weight loss.

Quote from: RattyDog on July 11, 2007, 03:39 PM NHFT

Quote from: d_goddard on July 11, 2007, 03:19 PM NHFT
I think we have an eminently passable bill in the brewing here... :)

I'm excited...really excited.

We will be here when you hit rock bottom again.

Quote

QuoteEnforcing licensing which has provisions for mandatory vaccinations or having mandatory vaccinations is exactly the same thing. Mandatory vaccinations would be enforced in the same manner as the licensing.

QuoteNot quite - under a system of mandatory vaccinations, or a requirement to be able to prove current vaccination on demand, you would not be subject to punishment for refusing to rent your own dog from the state.

No, but you would be subject to punishment for not vaccinating or for not proving vaccination.
It be the same thing.

I can easily see both sides of this.  I think rabies is a dangerous enough disease that it reaches the threshold of "imminent danger."  So how about a compromise:

You are not required to get a rabies vaccination -- however, any dog found on property not yours that does not display a current rabies tag is subject to being killed by anyone who suspects it may have rabies.  Oh, and if someone visits your house and gets rabies from your dog, you're liable (but that should be obvious).

Quote from: Ogre on July 12, 2007, 10:13 AM NHFT
I can easily see both sides of this.  I think rabies is a dangerous enough disease that it reaches the threshold of "imminent danger."  So how about a compromise:

You are not required to get a rabies vaccination -- however, any dog found on property not yours that does not display a current rabies tag is subject to being killed by anyone who suspects it may have rabies.  Oh, and if someone visits your house and gets rabies from your dog, you're liable (but that should be obvious).

Nah.  I would never want to have kids playing in my yard if I wasn't sure that my neighbor's dog was vaccinated.  Plus, I don't think the dogs should be punished for negligent owners.  Chances are, the dog could be vaccinated but the owner didn't put the tags on them.  Obviously, I'd like no government intrusion but, for right now, I think the system is somewhat OK the way it is.  I just think they're wrong for charging us money for properly vaccinating the dog.  The vet sent them copies of the rabies vaccination.  They have all that they need.  Just file the friggin vaccination certificate and be done with it.  There's no need for a "tax/fee".  They're not providing me with any services except for wasting paper (the bills they're sending) and wasting taxpayer money (hiring people to call citizens and tell them they owe money to the city).  Fire the damn people that are calling us and there probably isn't even a need to have a tax on dogs anymore.  Problem solved. 

There are many DVM's that oppose vaccines 100% or only use them only on a very limited basis.

Two high profile DVM's that come to mind are Dr Martin Goldstein and Dr Dan Moore.

I was never vaccinated nor were any of my animals (cats, dogs, horses etc). I know many other folks (and animals) that are unvaccinated as well and are quite healthy.

The vaccine propaganda machine has done a nice job on 95% of the public invoking fear and brainwashing people into believing vaccines have saved the planet from diseases.

A person who makes a choice not to vaccinate is not neglecting their child or an animal nor are they a threat to anyone else. In fact they are more informed about the pros and cons of vaccines than most other people. 95% of people have only heard one side of the story (from the CDC and MSM ) which is disinfo and misinfo). There is a mountain of info (med journals and stats) showing a completely different story. Before  someone makes assumptions and decisions both sides of the story should be scrutinized.

"I think that vaccines, justly credited as the tamers of disease epidemics, are nevertheless the leading killers of dogs and cats in America today."  Martin Goldstein, D.V.M.

Vaccines may cause the very disease they are supposed to suppress.  "Animals, like humans, may have been rendered more vulnerable to viral diseases by the very vaccines used to combat them."  Dr. Goldstein

"One of the saddest things in our practice is to restore a dog's health (sometimes after prolonged and careful work) only to have the animal suffer a relapse and go into a decline after we acquiesce to a required rabies vaccine."  Richard Pitcairn, D.V.M.

"Every skin problem you see is due to vaccinations without fail.  Later in life, arthritic situations and degenerative spinal dis-eases are the result of vaccines.  The rabies vaccine in dogs and cats causes so many problems it isn't funny...personality changes, skin changes, damage to the thyroid and endrocrine systems.  It lowers the immune system tremendously.  The animal becomes fair game to just about any disease."  John Fudens, D.V.M.

http://www.courageouscaucasians.com/vaccinations.htm

The truth is out there.

Kola

Vaccination controversy
Are vaccinations beneficial or dangerous for our pets? This is a controversial topic. On the one hand, we're told that our dogs and cats should get yearly shots or we're not taking proper care of them. Most veterinarians send out yearly reminders to bring our pets in for their annual vaccinations. So we feel we're taking good care of our pets by doing this. But did you know that there is no scientifically proven reason to give pets annual vaccinations? Instead, it is done because of "historical precedent" or, in other words, "that's the way it's always been done". Since we are not vets at Optimum Choices, we would not presume to give you advice on how often or what to vaccinate your pets for. Instead, we will report on what veterinarians are saying about this topic and encourage you to do further research and make up your own mind on this issue.

Dr. Martin Goldstein, DVM, a leading holistic veterinarian, states "I think that vaccines, justly credited as the tamers of disease epidemics, are nevertheless the leading killers of dogs and cats in America today." Dr. Goldstein, a columnist for Animal Wellness Magazine, is the author of The Nature of Animal Healing, where he devotes a whole chapter to the problems caused by vaccines......con't http://www.optimumchoices.com/May_2005.htm

you are not silly you are right.  There are different fees for spayed animals and those that are not.  Why ?  It is just a way to get revenue from animal lovers.  I have a diffrent problem I am trying to rent a house but unfortunately have 3 dogs and 2 cats.  All well behaved but no....people are unwilling to rent to me.  I have found a place but have had to leave my cats behind in NY until I sell my house and can buy a house where I can do what I want and have as many animals as I want.

Good for you....we need to question what we are paying, for what and where it is going to.  If no one knows where it goes or what it is for we are all foolish for paying such a tax

I agree Rattydog.  I still think rabies vaccination is important.

Kola, you bring up some good points and I will look into the info that you posted.  Thanks for posting it.  I'm definitely interested in learning more.  I'm definitely not a fan of the "coerced vaccination" system we have - with pets and especially with humans.  My only dispute with no vaccination requirement is . . . for every responsible pet owner that makes a choice not to vaccinate their animal (yourself), there are a multitude of irresponsible pet owners that would choose not to vaccinate their animal out of laziness or neglect.  The irresponsible pet owners are the ones that worry me.  Back in Ohio, I saw a squirrel infected with rabies and it was scary.  The animal was out of control and I have no doubt it would have attacked me if I was close enough.  If a Great Dane or a Doberman or the Malumat (sp?) down the street from me got infected with rabies, it would be a disaster.  My house in Manch is on a tiny lot and I have hundreds of neighbors within a half mile radius.  One infected animal could wreak havoc. 

As far as vaccinations causing the diseases they are developed to prevent . . . I've heard that before and will try to learn more about it.  I have issues with vaccinations and medications for humans.  I feel that they are developed to keep people sick to encourage more pharma use . . . so I assume it's probably not any different with animals.  I'll definitely read up on it.

The only thing that annoys me about dogs around here is their owners not cleaning up after they crap on the sidewalks.

Many of the responses are based ONLY on what we have been led to believe.

Most people blindly accept the fact that vaccines are effective and have wiped out diseases.

Thus their statements such as " I have seen rabies and it is a terrible disease and this is why I am going to vaccinate my dog and everyone else should too."

I agree rabies is a terrible disease although I not convinced the vaccine works and I know for a fact the vaccine (alone) causes severe problems even death.

The Black Plague was a terrible disease yet there was no vaccine (and there is still no vax) yet the disease came and went after running its own natural course and with the help of the human immune systems adaptation. If a vaccine would have been developed for the Black Plague the vaccine industry would have taken credit for "wiping out the disease" AND it would give the CDC (and other pro-vax supporters) the "spin" to keep administering Black Plague vaccines in order to keep the plague from comig back. Sound familiar? 

To state that you will vaccinate based on the premise that diseases are dangerous indirectly shows that you accept that vaccines work. And what is your source for your belief system? The CDC? Merck and Glaxosmithkline (vax manufacturers)? These folks have a serious conflict of interest.

When seraching for truth, follow the money and find out who the bad guys are. Then do your own research before making a decision or stating your beliefs regarding vaccines.

Look at the Amish population and observe the health of them and their animals. They do not vax and there has never been one case of Autism in an Amish child. I like to use them as a great example of healthy folks that do not vax.
There seem to be a lot of self thinkers and freedom folks in this forum. Observe the Amish community as they are a great example of a community that has little need for government and all the other bureaucratic bs that goes with it.
To me, they have it damn good.

The truth is out there.

Kola   

rattydog, where did you gather the info regarding the Amish and incest and abuse?

Kola

No prob. :)

I have seen and read many of the allegations. I was just inquiring which ones, specifically. I grew up in Western NY where there are many Amish families and I had a lot of interactions and acquaintences with them. As a chiropractor, I also spent a lot of time treating them and getting to know them quite well.

Kola   

Quote from: RattyDog on July 09, 2007, 10:57 AM NHFT
This may all sound stupid and so small, but this is my first stand, this is the first time I've said "NO". Am I doing it right? I just want to go about all of this the right way. I have decided that I am a human being, that I have the right to say no...and I want to say no more often.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Is this a good place to draw a line....? Or are these bastards going to come and take my dog away?

It's not stupid at all, and I think you're doing it perfectly. It's the one small issue that finally pushed you past what you could stand from 'em.

I just moved up here to Manchester myself, from Massachusetts, on the last day of June. I had first joined the Free State Project in 2004, but for most of the time since then, I thought of actually moving as something I'd most likely do sometime in the indeterminate future, like so many plans and goals that people have that they never really follow through on for one procrastinatory excuse or another.

Then, they did this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401937.html).

As a Massachusetts resident, I already refused to drive a car because I'm not paying for mandatory insurance, and now they go and pass a law requiring people to buy mandatory health insurance just for being a resident of their state. So, that was the last straw for me. I signed up to the First 1000 pledge, and finally moved out of Massachusetts on the very last day before this new health insurance law went into effect. I actually have health insurance through my employer in Massachusetts, but I will not live in a state where they're forcing people to do business with private companies of any kind, especially a sector as notoriously shady as the insurance industry.

So, there's my line drawn, the point at which I said I'm not going to put up with their crap anymore—and here I am in New Hampshire now. :D

Quote from: RattyDog on July 10, 2007, 01:55 PM NHFT
Is it that, enough people have finally come up from The Circus Massachusetts that we are slowly going to turn into The Circus, too??

Hey, hey, I just moved from Massachusetts. ;) And I'll be doing whatever I can to counter any of the collectivists immigrating from there.

Quote from: RattyDog on July 10, 2007, 01:55 PM NHFT
What part of, "if you don't like smoking, don't come here" don't people understand?

Ah, but you see... it's unhealthy, so naturally I can tell you not to do it—even if you're only doing it to yourself! And in states with state-mandated health insurance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401937.html), you giving yourself cancer is making my premiums go up, so I even have a semi-rational, economic excuse to demand you stop smoking now!

Quote from: RattyDog on July 10, 2007, 02:20 PM NHFT

Quote from: Dreepa on July 10, 2007, 02:00 PM NHFT
I read something that the people from MA... lean more to the 'right'.
It is the people from NJ, NY, ME, and CT that are the lefties.

Don't forget Vermont, they tend to swing left. I love Vermont and never met a person from Vermont I didn't like. I don't know how it is to live there though and don't know much of their politics.

Vermont's leftist slant might be a very good thing (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=11623.msg158264) for us.

Quote from: Ratty DogI have decided that I am a human being, that I have the right to say no...and I want to say no more often.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Is this a good place to draw a line....? Or are these bastards going to come and take my dog away?

Liberating, isn't it.  Any place is a good place to draw a line if the alternative is not drawing a line.  They might take your dog away.  Unfortunately, those who choose to expose the violence inherent in the system are almost always on the receiving end of that violence.  It can be far from pleasant at times but it has it's rewards.

I think everyone around here who has done the CD thing would do things a little differently if they had it to do over again but I haven't heard anyone say they wouldn't have done it at all if they'd known how it was going to turn out.  For example my current situation.  It occupies a great deal of my mental energy, keeps me up at night, kinda fucked up my nerves when it comes to being around people in uniform.  I might very well spend some time in jail.  I feel good about what I'm doing.  If I had stopped and kissed that cops boots like he wanted I would regret it right now.  I've been in similar situations before and cooperated fully.  I didn't get arrested, didn't experience any physical pain, didn't positively influence anybody, didn't have one person come around from "that was stupid" to "I think you're doing this for all the right reasons and have a new respect for you and your cause because of it".  It's worth it.

Back to the topic... it occurs to me that NH is a small state, and there are veterinarians in MA, ME, and VT. I imagine it's possible to have your hounds vaccinated without using the NH "mandatory snitch" program.

The rabies threat is real, and any possible risks posed by vaccination are very slight when compared to the benefit. Already this year the news has reported rabid foxes (and one woodchuck) biting people in NH. Dogs are more likely to encounter such wildlife in an up-close way, so they are at greater risk for exposure.

QuoteThe rabies threat is real, and any possible risks posed by vaccination are very slight when compared to the benefit.

All "threats" are "real" if that is what you believe. Vax risks being "very slight" are highly questioned and it is difficult to track and sadly, there has never been one single study comparing unvax vs vaxed people or animals.  It took 60 years to figure out mercury from vaccines was causing Autism. (JAPS Vol 8 Geier and Geier).

KB, I respect your personal opinion on the subject though.

The terrorist threat is real too.  ;)

Kola

Kola,

When 13 vaccinated dogs and 13 unvaccinated dogs are exposed to live rabies, and the 13 vaccinated dogs survive while the 13 unvaccinated dogs die, then to deny the rabies vaccine is to deny that A = A.

The scientific method is the Swiss Army Knife of the rational mind - it is a versatile tool which takes things out of the realm of opinion and into the realm of fact.

mvpel,

The 13 dog experiment sounds quite simple and would be advantageous in proving efficacy.

It is my understanding that the statement and your "Swiss Army Study" is just your opinion..or was this an actual study?

Kola

Here is a interesting piece. They say their "old vax" for rabies was not very good but the "new" one shows great promise. (sacarstic tone) Um OK guys, lets keep at it until we get it right..but I thought the last "new" dose was going to be effective and safe.   

Surprise discovery helps tackle rabies
Disease/Infection News
Published: Thursday, 5-Jan-2006 
   Printer Friendly      Email to a Friend

 

In an unexpected discovery, scientists at Jefferson Medical College have found that a tiny change in a rabies virus protein can turn a "safe" virus extremely deadly. The finding has enabled the researchers to refine a vaccine they previously created against rabies in wildlife, making it safer and more effective.
"We have identified a molecular mechanism involved in making the rabies virus pathogenic and lethal, and have developed a very safe vaccine for the immunization of wildlife," says Bernhard Dietzschold, DVM, professor of microbiology and immunology at Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, who led the work. "As a result, we think we have engineered a virus which is nonpathogenic and extremely stable."

Reporting recently in the Journal of Virology, Dr. Dietzschold, Matthias Schnell, Ph.D., associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Jefferson Medical College, and their co-workers identified a mutation in a rabies virus gene that changes a single amino acid in the virus's outer coat. The alteration was enough to turn a "safe" virus into a deadly version, making the virus unusable for vaccination.

Wildlife rabies is a substantial health problem in the United States. It is particularly prevalent along the East Coast, where more than 90 percent of reported cases occur in wildlife. Raccoons are the most affected, with skunks a close second. Worldwide--and especially in underdeveloped nations--rabies takes a large human toll; more than 60,000 deaths a year. In the United States alone, more than $1 billion is spent annually for control, treatment and prevention of rabies.  

kola note: I did not find a source citation for the above statement. Usually the CDC makes these types of claims. I have a mountain of evidence to prove that the CDC has serious conflicts of interest when it comes to reporting the truth regarding vaccines and diseases.

The Jefferson scientists uncovered the mutation, during the testing of a virus they thought was suitable for use in vaccinating wildlife. The virus is first altered so that it will not cause disease, yet will arouse the immune system's defenses. Because viruses such as rabies have high mutation rates, researchers typically "passage" the virus through mice. That is, they inject it into the animals, recover it, and then put into a second mouse. This is repeated at least five times. Five generations, Dr. Dietzschold explains, is usually enough to see whether the virus will either mutate and turn dangerous, or show genetic stability.

The research team has tested the current virus in 10 passages in mice, and it remained safe while retaining its potency. Dr. Dietzschold notes that the likelihood of a mutation occurring is extremely low. While different varieties of rabies virus exist, they maintain enough similarities in the all-important outer glycoprotein, that a vaccine that takes advantage of immune reactions to this protein can be effective.

Dr. Dietzschold explains that the current wildlife rabies vaccine used in the United States is ineffective in a chief carrier: skunks. The vaccine developed by his team is much broader, showing efficacy in such animals as raccoon, skunk and mongoose. One of the problems with current vaccines is the fact that several varieties are used, depending on the particular species of animal. The scientists hope their vaccine will prove useful for rabies prevention in several species.  
The newer virus and vaccine currently are being evaluated by Molecular Targeting Technologies, Inc., of West Chester, Pa. The researchers are asking for permission from the United States Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency to perform field trials. These would entail placing food baits containing the vaccine in the wild, then later capturing and testing animals for antibodies against the rabies virus.

http://www.jeffersonhospital.org/

And the moral of the story: Don't get bitten by a skunk.

Quote from: kola on July 14, 2007, 04:46 PM NHFT
Here is a interesting piece. They say their "old vax" for rabies was not very good but the "new" one shows great promise. (sacarstic tone)

What does that have to do with canine vaccinations?

Feel free to run about the woods injecting skunks and raccoons if you wish.

Quote from: KBCraig on July 14, 2007, 05:40 PM NHFT

Quote from: kola on July 14, 2007, 04:46 PM NHFT
Here is a interesting piece. They say their "old vax" for rabies was not very good but the "new" one shows great promise.

What does that have to do with canine vaccinations?

Feel free to run about the woods injecting skunks and raccoons if you wish.

KB, The same vaccines are used in the wild(oral) and for domestic animals (intra muscular). I do not wish to run about the woods and vaccinate wild animals for the main reason being that vaccines do not work and they cause more harm than good. There are alot of attempted vaccine programs (in the wild) to reduce the rabies disease in animals. (raccoons and skunks are common carriers). The article has admitted that prior vaccines have been ineffective. The rables vaccine for canines have been questioned as well with little proof that it prevents rabies. Of course we have the CDC and vaccine manuafacturers (who btw do studies on their own products) that try to put a good spin on the issue.   

There are courageous DVM's who 100% oppose the rabies vaccine and many others who only recommend one dose for life and no more. They further state a dog who is ill or elderly should not be exposed to any rabies vaccines. I can supply sources at your request to back my claims.

I enjoy engaging in a discussion about vaccines if both parties act like adults and if they are truely interested and sincere. In the past I have found trying to discuss vaccines becomes quite similar to a discussion about politics or religion...things get ugly, no one changes their opinion and it becomes a waste of time and energy.

Kola   

The whole farce regarding vaccinations is just another notch in Big Brothers belt which was meant to invoke fear and then have the sheeple beg the government to protect them. Its a pretty good money maker too.
Yes Bigt Gov is saving the world and making it a safer place for me and you...cough cough.,,

just my opinion,
Kola

Quote from: kola on July 14, 2007, 09:05 PM NHFTKB, The same vaccines are used in the wild(oral) and for domestic animals (intra muscular).

Perhaps the difference in efficacy is in the difference in path of administration?  Because it is apparent that the vaccination of dogs and other domestic animals has proved effective in the years since the effort was begun in the 1940's:

(http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabies/shared_images/surv-01/fulls_01/cases_55-01_l.gif)

A grand total of 497 cases in all domestic animals in 2001, with cats as the most numerous among them at 249 vs 114 in dogs nationwide, down from around 4,000 in 1955.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabies/Epidemiology/Epidemiology.htm

Quoten this century, the number of human deaths in the United States attributed to rabies has declined from 100 or more each year to an average of 1 or 2 each year. Two programs have been responsible for this decline. First, animal control and vaccination programs begun in the 1940's have practically eliminated domestic dogs as reservoirs of rabies in the United States. Second, effective human rabies vaccines and immunolglobins have been developed .

Quote from: kola on July 14, 2007, 09:05 PM NHFT

Quote from: KBCraig on July 14, 2007, 05:40 PM NHFT

Quote from: kola on July 14, 2007, 04:46 PM NHFT
Here is a interesting piece. They say their "old vax" for rabies was not very good but the "new" one shows great promise.

What does that have to do with canine vaccinations?

Feel free to run about the woods injecting skunks and raccoons if you wish.

KB, The same vaccines are used in the wild(oral) and for domestic animals (intra muscular).

Sorry, I was being too sarcastic. That was my point: that scattering oral medicines in the wild can't possibly produce the same efficacy as individual injections.

QuoteI do not wish to run about the woods and vaccinate wild animals for the main reason being that vaccines do not work and they cause more harm than good. There are alot of attempted vaccine programs (in the wild) to reduce the rabies disease in animals. (raccoons and skunks are common carriers). The article has admitted that prior vaccines have been ineffective. The rables vaccine for canines have been questioned as well with little proof that it prevents rabies.

Do you have cites of domesticated dogs or cats that have contracted rabies despite current vaccinations? The low incidence of rabies in vaccinated animals looks like pretty good evidence, given that the decline is correlated to widespread vaccinations.

Questioning whether we're over-vaccinating animals is a good discussion. I have read good arguments for two- and three-year cycles. But flatly stating that "vaccinations don't work" makes it sound like a point of faith.

Kevin

Quote from: KBCraig on July 15, 2007, 07:58 PM NHFT

Quote from: kola on July 14, 2007, 09:05 PM NHFT

Quote from: KBCraig on July 14, 2007, 05:40 PM NHFT

Quote from: kola on July 14, 2007, 04:46 PM NHFT
Here is a interesting piece. They say their "old vax" for rabies was not very good but the "new" one shows great promise.

What does that have to do with canine vaccinations?

Feel free to run about the woods injecting skunks and raccoons if you wish.

KB, The same vaccines are used in the wild(oral) and for domestic animals (intra muscular).

Sorry, I was being too sarcastic. That was my point: that scattering oral medicines in the wild can't possibly produce the same efficacy as individual injections.

QuoteI do not wish to run about the woods and vaccinate wild animals for the main reason being that vaccines do not work and they cause more harm than good. There are alot of attempted vaccine programs (in the wild) to reduce the rabies disease in animals. (raccoons and skunks are common carriers). The article has admitted that prior vaccines have been ineffective. The rables vaccine for canines have been questioned as well with little proof that it prevents rabies.

Do you have cites of domesticated dogs or cats that have contracted rabies despite current vaccinations? The low incidence of rabies in vaccinated animals looks like pretty good evidence, given that the decline is correlated to widespread vaccinations.
Questioning whether we're over-vaccinating animals is a good discussion. I have read good arguments for two- and three-year cycles. But flatly stating that "vaccinations don't work" makes it sound like a point of faith.
Kevin

I wish I cared enough to follow this thread closely. However, I do know for a fact that, in general, regulations that are for animals are almost always a precursor for regulations that are intended for humans. Anyone following both the new national mandatory animal tagging laws and Fox news knows this to be true. California proposing mandatory animal sterilization, many states have animal chipping. I'm not saying to not vaccinate animals, but just realize that the overlord architects of our society CLEARLY plan these things many years in advance, and animal regulation is part of how they set the stage for getting inside your own bloodstream.

mvpel,
I appreciate your work and by posting the CDC graphs regarding rabies.

From your CDC "report" it is unclear where the information came from and the specifics of it. It is not a scientific peer review study. The CDC is a reporting agency and rarely (if ever) do they disclose how there numbers and stats were compiled. The CDC has a long track record of serious conflict of interest issues. It makes it difficult to find the truth. I find some of their information valid and others are nothing more than opinions or they have fudged numbers to line their pockets or their financial supporters.

back to the graph, remember it has been proven that many vaccines cause the disease instead of preventing it thus this could be the explanation for the spike in the wild.

Kola

QuoteDo you have cites of domesticated dogs or cats that have contracted rabies despite current vaccinations? The low incidence of rabies in vaccinated animals looks like pretty good evidence, given that the decline is correlated to widespread vaccinations.

here is a case of a vaxed dog who got rabies ( and it is from the one and only CDC..) 


: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000874.htm

I think I have gone off topic here. My apologies. If anyone wants to continue we could start a new thread.

or research Dr Sherri Tenpennys work, Dr Tim Oshea, Dr Tedd Koren but my favorite is Neil Z Miller's book entitled "Vaccines, Are they Safe and Effective".

Kola

Many people in this thread seem to be forgetting that just because something is a good idea doesn't mean it ought to be a law. I would compare the vaccination requirement to things like compulsory insurance—many people would consider it downright foolish to not have health insurance if one can afford it, or if one drives a lot, to do so without auto insurance—but that doesn't mean it should be legally required. There are plenty of other examples. Smoking tobacco in public is potentially dangerous to others—let's ban it. Smoking tobacco is very bad for you, too—so let's ban that, too. Driving without a seatbelt is very dangerous—let's require them. Riding a motorcycle or bike without a helmet is dangerous, too. And so on, and so on...

The evidence that vaccination is a good thing is in my opinion overwhelming, and if I had a dog, I would have it vaccinated—for its safety, for mine, and for my neighbors'. However, I would still oppose having a law requiring vaccination, and I would refuse to pay any government fees associated with licensing, with the vaccination, with filing reports/proof-of-vaccination with the city, &c.

Excellent point.  I think the line is only crossed when there is "present danger to others."  In other words, no matter how many times someone doesn't wear a helmet on a motorcycle, that's not going to be dangerous TO ME.  There should be no law requiring helmets.

Now, does rabies present a present danger to others?  Only when it's present -- in other words, I can see a law that prohibits people from owning a dog that has rabies!

Quote from: RattyDog on July 20, 2007, 10:32 AM NHFT

Quote from: Ogre on July 20, 2007, 09:28 AM NHFT
Excellent point.  I think the line is only crossed when there is "present danger to others."  In other words, no matter how many times someone doesn't wear a helmet on a motorcycle, that's not going to be dangerous TO ME.  There should be no law requiring helmets.

Now, does rabies present a present danger to others?  Only when it's present -- in other words, I can see a law that prohibits people from owning a dog that has rabies!

Yeah...maybe something along the line of "If you have a dog who has rabies, you must put the animal down or seek treatment within x amount of time, or your dog will be taken away and treated at your cost." - That seems fair to the animal, to you and me...etc.

I don't know...at once I feel that it is none of the gov'ts damn business if my dog has rabies...but I live in Manchester, there are tons of people around me who could care less about rabies. I don't want to be bitten by a rabid dog.

A reasonable law might also allow the person to leave the dog untreated if they keep it restrained: locked indoors and around no other people but the owner, or something along those lines. Since rabies is terminal, I doubt few people with an actually rabid dog would leave it be, so such a provision in the law would very rarely be taken advantage of anyway—and anyone who does so easily falls under the "you're a fool but that's your right" heading.

Naturally if the dog escapes and bites someone else, said fool is responsible for it.

Quote from: RattyDog on July 20, 2007, 10:32 AM NHFT

Quote from: Ogre on July 20, 2007, 09:28 AM NHFT
Now, does rabies present a present danger to others?  Only when it's present -- in other words, I can see a law that prohibits people from owning a dog that has rabies!

Yeah...maybe something along the line of "If you have a dog who has rabies, you must put the animal down or seek treatment within x amount of time, or your dog will be taken away and treated at your cost." - That seems fair to the animal, to you and me...etc.

I don't know...at once I feel that it is none of the gov'ts damn business if my dog has rabies...but I live in Manchester, there are tons of people around me who could care less about rabies. I don't want to be bitten by a rabid dog.

Stop thinking about normal everyday mundane animal ownership and start thinking about amateur or completely free-market scientific research.  If I'm going to study rabies, I need infected animals.  Having a law against owning and keeping animals with rabies sounds good, except that now no one can study rabies except the select elite who are exempt. 

Kind of like trying to study Schedule I drugs with "no accepted medical use" - since no one is allowed to own or use them, and therefore study them - except the select elite who are exempt - and funded by the govt to publish research reports about the horrors of those drugs.

First, I have not had time to read the entire thread. I am a NH native and have some things to add.

I admire the outrage, but outrage without knowledge can sometimes be like a blank cartridge.

It is important to know how and why all these little laws came into existence, and it doesn't hurt to know something about how governments have come to be "budgeted" and funded.

Keep in mind that the worst takings of freedoms have been made "for a good reason."

Many of you are probably too young to remember when there were no leash laws. I remember. Dogs were not routinely spayed or neutered, and they ran free. Many damaged other people's property and/or bit animals and people (sometimes killing livestock, often running deer in packs).

Someone said, "There oughta be a law," and laws were enacted. How was that sold to the public?

Here's just a few of the rationales used then, and used today.


Problem: It costs money to have a dog catcher go get an abusive dog and take it back to its owner, and we don't know who can be held accountable in civil court for damages to property/people.

Solution: Require dogs to be licensed (for a fee to offset the expense), collared and tagged so the DC will know where to return them and/or who can be sued for damages.


Problem: The DC picks up a stray dog (abusive or not) and doesn't know where to take it. It costs "public" money to kennel the dog and it may not even have an owner.

Solution: Require dogs to be licensed and limit the amount of time that government must pay to take care of unlicensed animals.


Problem: If a dog bites, we don't know if the bitten animal or person is at risk for contracting rabies (at that time a positively fatal disease — and still lousy odds).

Solution: Require that all dogs be vaccinated for rabies.


Problem: People go to city or town hall to register/license their dogs, but they forget to take the rabies documentation. Oops. Need to make a second trip.

Solution: Require vets to notify city/town clerks of all vaccinations and that will speed up time at the window.


That's just a small example of how we have come to be buried under unfathomable amounts of petty laws governing every aspect of our lives, and fees that raid our pockets.


Now about the "fees." There are various laws governing how city/town clerks are to be paid, essentially involving either hourly pay, annual salary (funded from the general fund — more on that later), the fees for processing the paper work, or a combination of wages/salary and fees. Those decisions are ostensibly made by local legislative bodies (voters).

State and local government is funded through a combination of taxes and fees, which FOLLOW the amount budgeted. The budget limits or expands the amounts that may be spent, and in most cases individual (department) budgets are funded out of the general fund, comprised of taxes and "all other revenues" raised from fees, fines, etc.

At the local level, the local governing body (elected officials) proposes an annual budget and the people get to amend it or not, and then vote yes or no. Procedures are different for towns and cities. If they vote no, there are provisions for reverting to prior budgets with limited changes.

At the town level, anticipated revenues from (user) fees, fines, other governments and other sources are estimated and subtracted from the overall budget amount (general fund). THEN taxes are levied to make up the difference.

Everything is controlled by "the budget." At the local level, people need to vote no on spending. At the state level, legislators need to vote no on spending.

Voter spending authorization is the bottom line cause of all ills. Voters have the power to fix things. They just don't bother.

Edgar Friendly: See... According to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak of the barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fried". I want high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon, butter and buckets of cheese, ok? I wanna smoke a cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I wanna rin through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading PlayBoy magazine, why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, ok pal? I've seen the future, know what it is? It's a 47-year old virgin sitting around in his beige pyjamas driking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an oscar meyer wiener"

Great movie.   ;D

In Russia the result of no animal control is evident on the streets of the city of Nizhniy Tagil - stray dogs are everywhere.

Quote from: mvpel on July 24, 2007, 08:38 AM NHFT
In Russia the result of no animal control is evident on the streets of the city of Nizhniy Tagil - stray dogs are everywhere.

"Animal control" vs. "stray dogs everywhere" is a false dichotomy—people in the affected neighborhoods could try to do something about it themselves, for example.

But it's Russia.  They've had impulse beaten out of them over the decades.

Ok... I was in the local tax office today.  I saw the sign about dog tags.

I asked it the fees goes into the general fund.
I was told no.
Part stays in the town.
Part gets sent to Dept of Ag (some group within it) that goes to spay and neuter stray dogs.

Quote from: mvpel on July 24, 2007, 03:14 PM NHFT
But it's Russia.  They've had impulse beaten out of them over the decades.

...by the very government that would provide animal control officers, no?

Quote from: Sam Adams on July 22, 2007, 10:23 AM NHFT
First, I have not had time to read the entire thread. I am a NH native and have some things to add.

I admire the outrage, but outrage without knowledge can sometimes be like a blank cartridge.

It is important to know how and why all these little laws came into existence, and it doesn't hurt to know something about how governments have come to be "budgeted" and funded.

Keep in mind that the worst takings of freedoms have been made "for a good reason."

Many of you are probably too young to remember when there were no leash laws. I remember. Dogs were not routinely spayed or neutered, and they ran free. Many damaged other people's property and/or bit animals and people (sometimes killing livestock, often running deer in packs).

Someone said, "There oughta be a law," and laws were enacted. How was that sold to the public?

Here's just a few of the rationales used then, and used today.


Problem: It costs money to have a dog catcher go get an abusive dog and take it back to its owner, and we don't know who can be held accountable in civil court for damages to property/people.

Solution: Require dogs to be licensed (for a fee to offset the expense), collared and tagged so the DC will know where to return them and/or who can be sued for damages.


Problem: The DC picks up a stray dog (abusive or not) and doesn't know where to take it. It costs "public" money to kennel the dog and it may not even have an owner.

Solution: Require dogs to be licensed and limit the amount of time that government must pay to take care of unlicensed animals.


Problem: If a dog bites, we don't know if the bitten animal or person is at risk for contracting rabies (at that time a positively fatal disease — and still lousy odds).

Solution: Require that all dogs be vaccinated for rabies.


Problem: People go to city or town hall to register/license their dogs, but they forget to take the rabies documentation. Oops. Need to make a second trip.

Solution: Require vets to notify city/town clerks of all vaccinations and that will speed up time at the window.


That's just a small example of how we have come to be buried under unfathomable amounts of petty laws governing every aspect of our lives, and fees that raid our pockets.


Now about the "fees." There are various laws governing how city/town clerks are to be paid, essentially involving either hourly pay, annual salary (funded from the general fund — more on that later), the fees for processing the paper work, or a combination of wages/salary and fees. Those decisions are ostensibly made by local legislative bodies (voters).

State and local government is funded through a combination of taxes and fees, which FOLLOW the amount budgeted. The budget limits or expands the amounts that may be spent, and in most cases individual (department) budgets are funded out of the general fund, comprised of taxes and "all other revenues" raised from fees, fines, etc.

At the local level, the local governing body (elected officials) proposes an annual budget and the people get to amend it or not, and then vote yes or no. Procedures are different for towns and cities. If they vote no, there are provisions for reverting to prior budgets with limited changes.

At the town level, anticipated revenues from (user) fees, fines, other governments and other sources are estimated and subtracted from the overall budget amount (general fund). THEN taxes are levied to make up the difference.

Everything is controlled by "the budget." At the local level, people need to vote no on spending. At the state level, legislators need to vote no on spending.

Voter spending authorization is the bottom line cause of all ills. Voters have the power to fix things. They just don't bother.

Sam, great post!

One issue though with the portion I highlighted.  In some cases towns artificially inflate the default budgets so voters are left with defaults that increase spending and new budgets that increase spending.  In some cases the budget is even higher then the default (as was the case many times in Merrimack).

Quote from: Dreepa on July 24, 2007, 04:50 PM NHFT
Ok... I was in the local tax office today.  I saw the sign about dog tags.
I asked it the fees goes into the general fund.
I was told no.
Part stays in the town.
Part gets sent to Dept of Ag (some group within it) that goes to spay and neuter stray dogs.

According to state law a grand total of $2.50 of dog license fees goes to the state.  $2 is deposited in the "companion animal neutering fund" and $0.50 is for the operation of the veterinary diagnostic laboratory.  The remaining $4 to $6.50 (fixed vrs not fixed dogs) is placed in the treasury of the town or city, first to pay "loss of or damages to domestic animals by dogs" then for general use of the city or town.  In addition all fees for late payment ($1 per month late plus $25 civil forfeiture and $5 cost of service) are kept by the town.  It's less clear where the possible $50 court fine is distributed to.

Why do I know this?  I was recently handed a summons for failure to license my dog.  In addition to discovering where the money goes I have discovered that Merrimack is overcharging for dog licenses (RSA 466:4 outlines the fees) likely due to confusion with RSA 466:9 which describes who receives various parts of the fee.  I have also discovered that the warrant authorizing civil forfeiture was not properly handled.

So now I'm asking for advice.  Is it a worthwhile effort to fight the invalid civil forfeiture and minor license overcharge?  In pure monetary terms it appears I could stand to save $31 while risking a $50 fine and associated court costs.  I'm discounting both the value of my own time and the possibility of extreme response from the judge but a pure monetary accounting also fails to take into account the pleasure in holding bureaucrats to their laws.  Any advice?

-Nat

Absolutely worth it.  Not only is it entertaining, it's doing your civic duty.  I reckon it would be almost as fun as fighting a California seatbelt ticket and winning.

Can we make people get licenses to be bureaucrats? Maybe, say, $25 per resident per year...

I think you've missed the price point.  It should be more like $25K a year.  that might actually discourage the behaviour.